P-Alaska Sues to Overturn Listing of the Beluga in Cook's Inlet

Back on October 17, 2008, I excitedly wrote about the Cook's Inlet (Alaska) beluga whale listing. But now, P-Alaska is challenging the listing:

"It seems the Palin administration only likes one kind of science -- the kind it agrees with," said Craig Matkin, an Alaska marine mammal specialist with the North Gulf Oceanic Society. "Every objective expert who's looked at this small and isolated beluga population agrees it should be listed."
--X Ray Mag

By mid October, the nation had learned quite a lot about P's (we don't use the Alaska Governor's name around here anymore) position's on many things as VP candidate on the Republican ticket. Though virtually no one knew the name when first announced, the environmental community certainly did. I did. I knew the name because of her unscientific, illogical, vicious and radical support for aerial wolf hunting in Alaska.

I was stunned to think such an environmental neanderthal could even be floated--let alone chosen--as a VP candidate. I wrote my first post on P and her vigorous support of aerial wolf hunting that night--the night of announcement--and posted it the following day, August 30, 2008.

Given P was so heavily criticized for her generally inane, "worse that Watt" environmental stands--support of wolf hunting; her adversarial legal challenge to the ESA listing of the polar bear in light of global warning; her support of the slaughter of bear sows and cubs to, like the wolf slaughter, provide more caribou for tourist's to shoot; her opposition to the listing of the Cook's Inlet beluga because of more important oil and gas interests etc.--it was amazing that anyone with any sort or kind of environmental knowledge or care of same could even consider P as a viable political option media or not.

Blogs, print and net media went viral with the story of the wolf--finally. And people began to write about her overall "scorched earth" environmental stands--finally.

*****

Post defeat, I had hoped P had learned something about Americans and the environment (and believe me, much of the world press also had a field day on many of these issues) and perhaps she might take that lesson home and think long and hard about it, even seek to actually spend some time and money seeking to help Alaska's environment. Instead, as the Center for Biological Diversity opined today:

Alaska ’s legal action against the beluga whale marks the second time in recent months that Governor Palin’s administration has launched legal attacks against endangered species on behalf of the oil industry; in August 2008 Palin filed suit seeking to overturn federal protection for the polar bear.

*****

One of the environmental groups I most respect on the issue of biological diversity and endangered species is The Center for Biological Diversity. The Center is a dedicated powerhouse for biological integrity and diversity and, though relatively small, packs a mean punch. The Center is top notch. TOP, TOP NOTCH.

The Center's write up on the belugas can be read here [note links on the right side should you desire to read more, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA) laws, themselves], and here is the Center's press release on the beluga topic. The Center originally sued (with others) to get the belugas on the ESA list and was successful last fall.

*****

Instead of self assessment, P is on the news, in print, on the web, in blogs whining about how unfairly she was treated (WAH!) by the press during the presidential campaign. She slams the media, slams Katie Couric, and even takes Caroline Kennedy to task in the context of her warped self-relativism. And of course, this is not just bothersome, it is almost (in the old use of the word) hysterical coming from her given her absolute know-nothing criticism of Hillary Clinton on... whining.

*****

What the press didn't miss, stub their alleged liberal toes on or mis-report, were P's environmental leanings. Shit, the woman hangs that laundry on the line every chance she gets with a cosmic middle finger to everything non-human and most things human.

The problem is that P has learned exactly nothing from the campaign about herself, her mistakes, the fact Americans didn't (and don't) like her (her polling was terrible after the first convention curve) and why. Yet, to this minute, she exacts a terrible toll on the Alaskan wildlife that is not hers to kill. These species are not controlled by Alaska, but the US government.

And thanks be to God for that.

In the meantime, some of the world's most endangered animals are in P's sights, almost literally, while P serves as a lapdog for the oil and gas industry moving even farther to the right, environmentally, than George Bush--astounding as that might seem.

I wonder if P realizes that tourism isn't driven by oil and gas. Shoot, want to see oil and gas, buy a ticket to west Texas and rent a car. Or if you want to see aerial views of the oil and gas industry rape on wild land, go to VP Dick Cheney's alma, Wyoming, and take a fly over of the oil/gas exploration areas there. It is an environmental travesty.

The bottom line is this: We need to track ESA issues, and need to track those that attempt to derail listings. It is NEVER just about one species. It is always a broad attack on the entire assumption that species and environment even matter, or are indicative of environmental health or human error.

Think canary in the coal mine. Or, right now, just think Tennessee and massive coal industry (sludge) screw ups that we CANNOT clean up.

---------------------------------------
For press coverage of the belugas:

1. This is a press release from April 22, 2008 PRIOR to listing when The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service was doing a whale recount prior to listing (good background piece)
2. NOAA listing of whales as endangered, here.
3. Excellent National Geographic Piece (with graphics and pics) on the Cook's Inlet belugas here.
4. P Administration and related entities reaction to listing of Cook's Inlet beluga whale here.
5. Stories on Alaska litigation to challenge ESA Cook's Inlet beluga listing: here and here.
6. An Alaskan perspective, here.

Really Neat Photos of Polar Bear and Huskies

I refer you here.

Wow is all I can say.

Rethinking Gift Giving: Don't We Have Enough?

If any one of you doesn't have enough stuff, please let us know here at the blog. I would be more than happy to send some of mine and I bet there are dozens of people that read this blog who are more than willing to do likewise.

So, this holiday season, what are you giving?

Would that be poverty, violation of human rights, usury and other horrendous crimes through the gift of a blood diamond?

Are you giving something battery powered without giving rechargeable batteries and the charger?

Are you giving a petroleum powered gift--the gift that keeps on taking from not only the living generation, but those beyond?

I have a suggestion. STOP IT!

There are tens of thousands of groups working on every imaginable issue someplace in the world that could use those funds to feed people, save a mountain, river, forest, a wolf, whale, polar bear, gorilla or domestic animal, help an abused child or protect human and/or civil rights.

Many that read this blog are Christians, and many not. As Christians, we are called to pay attention to the needy in this world. That includes ALL of God's creation. Those of us not Christian are called by their social and moral consciences.

Already this year, the wolf hunt in Alaska has begun. 19 wolves have already been mutilated and slaughtered through aerial hunting. It begins with the first snow fall when wolves have a harder time racing to safety and are more easily spotted. And it HAS to stop. Groups fighting this need funds to continue their legislative work on the issue. There is also the issue of the wolves in Yellowstone, etc. Defenders of Wildlife who put out the fabulous information during the last election are, along with Alaskan groups, are on the forefront of this issue.

Species all over the world are being fought for by one group or another. Google your favorite.

There is no lack of needed funding by US domestic animal rescue groups. Local and national groups need help constantly both for legislative purposes and to pay for veterinary costs. I know how hard it is, I do it.

Pick a country. There are starving people there, including in the United States. Google "fight hunger". Or if homelessness is your issue, google the word.

On topical environmental issues, from nuclear weapons to forests, google the word. You will find them easily.

On social justice and civil rights issues, google the topic.

This year, really give. Give sincerely and give deeply. Give the gift of life. Support the good work of a non-profit group. You can fashion the gift (some will send to the receiver a note saying what you did, in other cases, you have to do it yourself) as one of true love.

Don't consume in giving, give in giving. It's easy, it's appropriate and it's sorely needed.

And please, buy a living tree... even if a little one. You can pot it and reuse or often local tree groups will accept it for urban planting. We need all the CO2 absorption we can get!

More at HER Expense, Plus Other Nifty News

UPDATE: This is incredibly good, and quite funny...

*****

Well, Palin apparently hasn't quite been able to shed her beauty pageant days. As we know, image is everything in some cases.

The International Herald Tribune reports this today (which just cracked me up!):

Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain's presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staffer. It was Amy Strozzi, Governor Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

I just had to imagine how that money might have been better spent, say on more debate coaching, more sessions on international affairs. And, of course, the totals are not in. Palin's staff bought her more clothes when they landed in Nevada.

In case you are wondering what this makeup artist makes, it is (drum roll) $22,800.00 for the first two weeks of October alone. Wow. Her hair stylist made $10,000.00 for the first half of October.

That's Ms. Joe Sixpack alright, that little Maverick. I will keep the truly snide comments to myself because you are probably thinking the same thing.

As we were loading and unloading 6,000 lbs. of dog/cat food yesterday in 90-degree weather, I had my hair in a long braid. On my feet were an old pair of tennis shoes. The rest of my expensive attire included jeans and a t-shirt. By the time we finished, I was absolutely soaked with sweat.

So who is really Ms. Joe Sixpack? Me, the progressive dem voting for Obama. What irony. That $2500.00 jacket Palin was wearing? Well, that could pay for about 1,000 male cats to be neutered, 900 female cats, or 250 large dogs.

I guarantee you won't ever be seeing this 'gal' in a $2500.00 jacket. I have some really cool jackets--experienced jackets--from the thrift store, though. Great price, great value.

*****

This next part is far more serious. It involves terrorism and murder.

We have all heard (and heard, and heard) about William Ayers and his Weatherman days. Fortunately, no one died in those attacks. At one point after the first several bombings, the Weatherman notified targets so the people could evacuate. Still bad, but apparently Palin has trouble with some important distinctions here.

When asked if she believes bombers who target abortion clinics (dozens of clinic Doctors and other workers HAVE died or HAVE been seriously injured) are domestic terrorists, Palin responds like this (1:27sec., Palin's statement and other short material):



The moral (if there is one) of the story? If you bomb someone I like (the capital and the pentagon), you are a domestic terrorist. If you bomb someone I don't like, you are probably not a domestic terrorist.

Ah, the logic of Palin. This clearly puts Palin waaaaaay out on the fringe of America--not something unexpected. It also gives a tacit nod to those that commit these heinous crimes against abortion clinics and other targets.

Just keep saying to yourself, "Palin chooses life. Palin chooses life. Palin chooses life." Ignore the static.

No matter how one feels about abortion, rational people conclude that more violence is not the answer.

*****

Defenders of Wildlife have put out a new add on Palin (30 sec), this time on the polar bear which, as you know, she is suing to remove from the endangered species list. I wrote about it previously.

Here's the add:

*****

Finally, a bit of badly needed humor from Will Ferrell and Tina Fey c/o Saturday Night Live, 'Bush Endorses McCain'. A real gem. (About 6:45.)

P's Dead Lake: Wasilla's Land Use Lobotomy

As you may know from reading my blog, I am considered a lay expert in land use. I found this article in salon.com very instructive not only about Wasilla but what P did and did not do in this regard.

We know about her feelings regarding the ecological balance between species which involves aerial slaughter of wolves AND bear sows and cubs so that more caribou and moose are available for tourist hunters. We know about her attacks and litigation on the endangered species act listing of the polar bear.

We know she is fighting the listing of the beluga whale in Alaska.

We know she is fighting the listing of three seal species in Alaska.

We know she opposed legislation that would have watched out for water quality in the face of a mine (Pebble Mine) in Alaska.

We know she supports drilling in ANWR, and has lied about the project's alleged 2,000 sq. ft. foot print (this really cracks me up... common parlance for someone trying to make a project look small).

We know she doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming/climate change. She recently has allegedly softened on this, but I don't believe it. You cannot smile and cheer at "Drill, baby, drill," and simultaneously support use of carbon based fuels. 430K years of carbon levels in ice don't lie.

We know she advocates for nuclear power and "clean coal" (no such thing). She has experience with neither, and no experience of knowledge whatsoever on the various radioactive waste streams.

We know she defeated a wind project in her state.

This is a woman McP suggests is a world expert on energy (and even if you consider oil alone, it is not true). This is a woman he says he will put in charge of our energy planning. Swell. This is a woman with NO science background and no interest in environmental science and a woman who also lied about the science findings on the polar bear which was discovered by a persistent scientist through an open records act request (they originally wanted to charge him in excess of $450,000 for the materials--some transparency!).

I deal with slugs like P all the time. They could care less about the environment and pay experts to help them through the process--read lie.

The fact that her town is a land use mess speaks volumes about her approach to the environment in which she, herself, lives... a standard she would certainly not hesitate to insist is likewise suitable for us all.

So, if you eat, breath or drink water you cannot possibly support this candidate.

BTW: The ESA is in serious trouble. I will be posting and hope you all will take action.

Palin: Strong Woman or Bellicose Bully? Fear and the Future

If you have not read this yet, please read it first, then come back and finish here. The posts are somewhat related.

A bit has been written about Palin's experience and management style. The fateful line, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities," caused concern and consternation from virtually everyone that has been a community organizer. It was a derisive statement, condescening and delivered with an aire of superiority and snub. Probably not coincidentally, after Palin's slam, McCain cancelled his next day visit to a Habitat for Humanity build site.

This article speaks to Palin's mayoral style and is clearly a heads-up on what we could expect, one of several reasons I am concerned.

But the part of the article that really bothered me was this about about Wasilla Police Chief, Irl Stambaugh, who she fired in her first term of office after requesting his resignation and that of nine others to prove their loyalty:

"Stambaugh was 6-foot-2, 240 pounds. Because he'd heard that Palin had felt intimidated by him during a meeting, he made sure to sit when talking with her, and to use a soothing voice. By early December, things had calmed down, and Stambaugh felt the threat of being fired had passed."

I cannot speak for another single woman (or man for that matter) in saying I am not the least bit unnerved by anyone I come up against, male or female. I am secure in who I am, and I know my subject. I don't need to tear into someone to make my point. Is the mark of a strong, capable man or woman fear of a physical characteristic of another?

Many of you reading this, being former Father Jake readers, know that on that site "bullying" was several times discussed. In fact, it was a common thread through many reader comments. So what do some psychologists see as typical behavior in bullies?

" ... Nevertheless, says Levinson, 40 years of consulting have given him some idea of what they do and why. They over-control, micromanage, and display contempt for others, usually by repeated verbal abuse and sheer exploitation. They constantly put others down with snide remarks or harsh, repetitive, and unfair criticism. They don't just differ with you, they differ with you contemptuously; they question your adequacy and your commitment. They humiliate you in front of others."

--Psycology Today, September/October 1995

"Some current findings are consistent with such older views as the idea, inspired by the work of Alfred Adler, that the bully is compensating for deep feelings of inferiority."

''We find that bullies have a strong need to control others,'' said John Lochman, a psychologist at Duke University Medical School. ''Their need to be dominant masks an underlying fear that they are not in control, and they mask the sense of inadequacy by being a bully.''

--New York Times, 4/7/87

In adults, it does not appear that bullying reduces productivity, nor does it seem to indicate that it stops one from rising to higher levels as the bully respects the power above them and are attracted to it:

"So tyrants spread misery, and from the outside it looks as if they are doing a fine job. It does not help matters, psychologists say, that people who enjoy abusing power frequently also revere it and are quick to offer that reverence to the even-more-powerful. Bullying bosses are often experts at ''managing up.''

"Subordinates know viscerally the high cost of going around a boss, even if it is simply to file a complaint with the human resources department. You are trouble. You are a whiner. You have called out the manager behind his back."

--New York Times, June 22, 2000

What we have seen in Sarah Palin since her rise is unnerving to me. I watch her and I just see something wrong; something looks out of sort. She looks and acts terse (fear). Add her hostility and grate, and I immediately want to go the other direction out of sight and sound. I could not name it until today--bully. Sarah Palin is a bully, and a bellicose one, at that. To me, Sarah Palin is dangerous, and especially so in the east wing a minute away from the west wing and calls on nuclear weapons and war. Her religious background doesn't make me feel any better about that, in fact it causes me even greater concern.

*****

We have just lived through the most bizarre eight years of any two-term president. Our economy is a mess and growing more unstable by the day. There is now a list of 79 banks in trouble and not small ones, either. While homeowners are losing their homes, Freddick Mac and Fannie Mae have been declared DOA, a topic Palin, BTW, clearly hashed in her recent remarks making economists almost unanimously cry in alarm, 'She is clueless!' Yup, yup. Not much better on the McCain end where he has admitted he doesn't understand the economy.

We have warred ourselves into an untenable present and a more miserable and unstable future. We have virtually eviscerated our beloved Constitution. We have a president that doesn't talk to congress and presidential advisors that have the nation in a paranoid neck hold. We actually talk about torture instead of be repulsed by it.

How possibly, I wonder, could it get worse?

In a word, Palin.

Repeated comments by people that know her and/or have worked with her have focused on her reprisal and abandonment. Read: not a team player. Now add bully and fearful, and her potential for screwing up what little foreign policy we have left is overwhelming, let alone domestic environmental, energy and social policies left standing after eight long years of political assasination under Rove and Cheney.

I'm not sure I really need to understand more of what I already know about her policies derived both from her words, her actions and her inactions and her clear lack of knowledge on issues of import to this country. What little she has said (over and over and over again) is carefully scripted and honed by those that have already given us what we have. Most of it--other than the fact she is married and has five kids--seemingly borders on near pathological distortion. Her political about-face from assaulter to the "poor me" assulted is a calculated move to keep her out of the sunlight of transparancy; her lines given because she doesn't know enough to birth her own.

As a woman, I find myself puzzled over the outstreatched reach to Sarah; a pawing of other women resembling teenagers at a 60's Beatle concert a few short breaths from a mere faint. I don't see respect (and what would that respect be for? Two x chromasomes?) in the apparent leagues that follow, but near idolotry. I prefer the meat of ideas to the doily of charisma--something she obviously has a lot of.

I am very troubled by her potential rise to a presidency with absolutely no solid person in the wings to back her up. In this years race, the GOP platform needs to be a "three for all": John McCain, Sarah Palin and a third solid rock that could back her up if something were to happen to McCain. I hold this horrible image of Sarah at the desk in the Oval Office saying, "Oh shit! Now what do I do?" (as she hands the famous football off to the "first dude" who is well known to be heavily involved in her affairs as governor.) I mean, he might be a snowmobile racing champion, and I'm pretty sure he's got the diaper thing down, but...

On the issue stands I am familiar with--and the important things in her life--I am not in agreement with a single one as far as I know. I hate hunting if not subsistance. I don't like guns. Her support for aerial gunning of wolves (and she has said any means to kill them is fine with her) indicates a cold heartlessness that will get no nod from me, let alone her absolute and obvious loathing of science. Palin knows little about any energy other than oil--you know, the energy source that is the major cause of carbon output that causes global warming that she doesn't attribute to humans?

Palin isn't pro choice. She doesn't agree with stem cell research. She is an advocate of abstinance only (of course, condoms are okay, but she does not believe in abortifactints which include birth control pills, IUDs, IUS use, etc.). She obviously loaths the endangered species act as she is suing to delist the polar bear, and working vigorously to keep the baluga whale and three species of seals off the list.

Palin might have a clue about Alaska's economy, but no clue about the other 49 states. I'm not comfortable with her giving welcoming messages to an organization that her husband belonged to that wanted to succeed from the US and is akin to anti-us as the KKK is to segregation. Her office, as Governor, has not helped the aboriginal people of Alaska at all, in fact helped to harm them. She is not a Maverick, unless that is a part of working for Ted Stevens the now-indicted Alaska Senator and hiring lobbyists to get a lot of money for Alaska which is, in fact, a welfare state; they contribute nothing to the US national economy.

Palin supports the grueling Ididarod race which I find incredibly abusive to the animals forced to participate in it to the glory of the human. Dogs die in this "race". Palin is anti-gay marriage and her life-long church until 2002 is involved in "praying the gay away". Her former pastor (where she still attends and speaks on occasion) has said that anyone that supported Kerry will probably go to hell. None of that seems at all within the range of reason to me.

She let a Sheriff charge women for their rape kits which is so bizarre and cold it just makes my waiste-length hair stand on end. She is doing everything to stall an ethics investigation into herself after saying she would fully cooperate.

Perhaps it's just me. What's there not to like, right?

As for her experience as the vaulted mayor of a town of 5,000 (at the time), I think her own words express my feelings quite well:

"When asked how she would run the city without experienced department heads, she responded, 'It's not rocket science. It's $6 million and 53 employees.' "

Exactly, Sarah. You sum it up pretty nicely.

The GOP Strategy on Palin: The "Alaska Maverick"

The "Alaska Maverick", Palin's new nik. This is exactly what to expect when the GOP talks about Palin; something tying to McCain's former image as a "reformer" to Palin.

For more information on Palin lies about Obama, go here. This piece, Palin v. reality is stellar and takes lines from her convention speech targeted at Obama. You can use this in your support for Obama... lots of good stuff there and these issues will come up given Palin's convention lies.

On ethics investigations regarding Palin (a new complaint was just filed), go here for "troopergate". I am looking now for a good piece on the new complaint.

(UPDATE: BTW, read a GREAT piece on the GOP's whining about sexism/Palin here. Just another GOP strategy!)

Maverick on Pork? No.
So say it to yourself ten times. Then read her flip-flop on the "Bridge to Nowhere" which involved "pork" for the project. That pork money was never returned to the federal govenment. Read this on the ridiculous "bridge to nowhere" and her flip-flopping on the matter. It is footnoted. There is another piece here.

Maverick on Science? No.
I think we covered Palin's "Maverick" views on creationism and "Intelligent Design" (ID) here. They are hardly Maverick. She is a Biblical literalist, a creationist, and supports both creationism and ID being taught in science classes.

Maverick on global warming? No.
Palin does not believe it is caused by humans. Read about it here.

Maverick on listing of the polar bear under the ESA? No.
She obficasted scientific opinion, and lied about it, then sued to de-list them from the endangered species act. Read here. Read my thoughts here.

Maverick on civil rights for lgbt folks? No.
Palin supported (right up to 2007) marriage as defined by one man/one woman.
Here is a history, with links because this subject is a bit convoluted and tricky.

_______________Cut and USE_______________

1. "Palin said she's not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay, but that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment." [this bill defined marriage as man/woman] From this.

2. The language of Ballot Measure 2 (1998) can be read here.

So, Palin SAID in the article that she voted for one man/one woman definition of marriage. THERE it is.

3. 9 lgbt couples sued over Measure 2 in 1999. In 2005, the court returned an "unconstitutional" decision on the 1998 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (actually, it affirms opposite sex marriage, but same result).

4. Then the issue got even more openly sticky and hostile.

In response to the 2005 court decision to the 1998 amendment (Measure 2), the Alaska legislature passed HB4001 and HB4002. Text of HB 4001 is here.

5. This is the Governor's press release on her veto of HB 4001 from 2006.

6. Now, as for HB 4002, Palin signed this on Dec. 20, 2006. The bill put before the voters an ADVISORY vote on benefits for same sex partners of employees and retirees. The point of HB 4002, in Palin's own words: "Palin has said that when voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman eight years ago, many believed they were also implying that a gay partner shouldn't get state benefits." This comment is located about half way through this article.

7. Here is the language of HB 4002 as sent to the governor.

8. Here is the governor's office release on HR 4002, and NOTE the language in it about the 1998 amendment. [interestingly, look at the DATE on this--8/29/08. This must have been put up in response to press questions? Odd. I almost have to wonder if it is original, but it does come from her office.]

9. HR 4002 mandated a vote to capture opinion on the benefits issue on April 3, 2007. The results of the Advisory referendum, held as a special election on April 3, 2007 , costing $1.2million, are here. The referendum passed (meaning, a yes vote was to limit benefits, a no vote would extend benefits to partners of same gender employees and retirees).

<______________________________>

I am still looking for the actual ballot language for Measure 2. Will post when located.

This is a story behind Measure 2 litigation and the people.

Here you can read the Alaska Law Review on the subject, including the origins of the marriage amendment, important to read. Here, is one paragraph from this work which, BTW, writers admit to supporting the man/woman marriage act (the '98 act), so brace yourself, but the history is absolutely fascinating):

"On February 27, 1998, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski held in Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics7 that under the Alaska Constitution, each person has a "fundamental right" to choose his or her "life partner," whether that partner is of the same or opposite sex.8 His unprecedented decision provoked an extraordinary reaction: the introduction and passage of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.9 The Marriage Amendment was challenged between its passage and the November general election, and the Alaska Supreme Court allowed a modified version to proceed to a vote.10 On November 3, 1998, the Alaska Marriage Amendment passed by a vote of sixty-eight to thirty-two percent.11"

If you need more information, please contact: http://www.bentalaska.com/

Maverick on wolves killed by aerial means? No.
Palin has supported a method to increase caribou and moose for non-subsistence hunting. There was no science in this. It was all about profit and hunting. Read about it here, and here, and here.

Maverick on Sex Education in School? No.
She is against sex education in school standing on the evangelical stance of "abstinence only", covered here and here. Update: apparently, she has shifted her views to include discussion of contraception using condoms as discussed here in the Los Angeles Time, 9/5/08.

Maverick on Iraq? No.
Palin supports the administration's failed policies in fact admits that she doesn't think about it much." To her credit, she does favor having an exit plan, something McCain does not. Read it here.

Maverick on Oil/Energy? No.
Read about it here. Palin believes we CAN drill our way out of our problem. Palin has also been a long-time supporter of drilling in ANWR. Read it here.

Maverick on Women's Reproduction Issues? No.
--Palin does not believe in the pill, the IUD, the IUS etc. Read about it here.

--Palin opposes a woman's right to choose, even in the case of rape or incest. here
Q: Under what circumstances should abortion be legal in the state of Alaska?
A: I respect the sanctity of innocent human life and am a pro-life supporter.

Maverick on the Economy? Unknown.

Maverick on the Environment? No.
Palin's singular environmental work has been on oil, which she supports the drilling of in ANWR. (See her quote under Energy, above). She has no expertience in nuclear, "clean" coal, oil shale, or renewables.

Maverick on Stem Cell Reseach? No.
Read her written comment here.

Maverick on the Death Penalty? No
Palin supports the death penalty. Read her written comment here.
Q: The platform of the Republican Party of Alaska states “We support swift implementation of capital punishment for heinous crimes and implementation of strong mandatory minimum prison sentences for all persons, including minors, committing crimes with deadly weapon(s) or deadly force.” Alaska does not have a death penalty. Will you propose the state adopt capital punishment?

A: I support capital punishment for heinous crimes and would support a Legislature that sought capital punishment.

So, tell me. What exactly is she a Maverick on?

Palin's Belief: God Has a Place but Honesty Doesn't

There are things in this world--odd things--that test our ability to weigh right and wrong, that help us to decide which way to go on an issue. Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, currently the short term governor of Alaska (pop 670K), is turning out to be an inconsistent, self-serving puzzle if ever there was one.

Palin's religious beliefs were formed in the pentecostal Assemblies of God church where she was re-baptized at 12 years of age having left the Roman Catholic Church. Today she attends Wasilla Bible Church a church that teaches the inspired inerrant (read literalism) Word of God. This means, whether Palin has vocally admitted it or not, she is a creationist if she does, in fact, agree with her church's Statement of Faith.

As an unambiguous advocate of teaching creationism (the Biblical Genesis origins of life), and of teaching the non-science of "Intelligent" Design, Palin is living this part of her faith and suggesting others do likewise even if they are not religious, not Christian, and not literalist.

A creationist believes everything is created by God as set forth in the Genesis creation stories. All of God's creation was (is) holy. All of God's animal creations at risk through the Biblical flood were, of course, saved by humans as they were packed--in pairs of two for "unclean" animals and in three pairs of two for "clean" animals (clean/unclean standards according to Leviticus) into the Ark. For some interesting reading, peruse her baptismal Church's (Assemblies of God) thinking on the Ark.

So her faith informs her of two things: 1) All things are created by God and are holy, and 2) these Godly creations needed saving by humans during the flood.

Today, global warming is causing early and rapid loss of arctic ice flows, including in Alaska. An estimated 25% of the world's population of polar bears live in Palin's Alaska state of 670K or so people. Polar bears are dependent on ice for their survival. It is now well documented that their survival--the ice--is melting under their very paws--and fast.

Instead of working to save the polar bear's themselves, and their environment, Palin is working to save the oil industry. Palin has filed a lawsuit to overturn the bear's endangered listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), an act signed into law by Republican Richard Nixon.

Not only does Palin take this course, she takes it in favor of petroleum interests (not mentioned as being sacred in the Bible), and objects based on economic interests [a topic absolutely nowhere addressed, literally, in the Bible]. Of course the Bible also does not address global warming and melting of ice flows which points to the problematic approach of Biblical literalism. The Bible also does not address the literal need for honesty in Governors, though it does address honesty and, as you might predict, it certainly suggests honesty in all things is good. Conflict of interest as a Governor dealing with issues of the family's bread winner isn't a topic of the Bible, either. Literalism does have its limits.

As an aside, polar bears had to be on the Ark. They cannot spend 40 days in the water.

The governor has called a special session of the Legislature to possibly rewrite the Petroleum Profits Tax. Her proposals could have a multi-million dollar impact on her husband's employer. BP could also become a major player in the natural gas line project.

-- KTUU News

Palin's husband, Todd, works as a North Slope oil field production operator for British Petroleum (BP). In other words, her family's bread and butter comes from the energy (read, in this case, oil and gas) industry. It also explains her fervent desire to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

In order to make her ESA objection on the polar bears, Palin clearly obfuscated (actually, she lied) scientific assessment (a dishonest act) indicating the need for the adopted listing was not warranted on this basis. In case you are unfamiliar with this process, the science needed to prove listing is rigorous. In the last eight years, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) hasn't exactly gotten better about doing their work, more liberal about listings, or more lax on the science. In fact, it is generally viewed by the scientific community that the USFWS (like other environmental and health agencies) is understaffed, underbudgeted, has shifted decidedly to the political right, and, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies, has been as anti-science as these agencies have ever been under any president.

In a potential breech of ethics, Palin cited green-washed studies funded in part by oil companies. Read here and note the source, which is not green media but corporate media. USFWS documentation has indicated concern for more bears seen in open seas.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming." "Alaska deserves better."
--Both quotes, Kassie Siegel, Center for Biological Diversity

"Essentially, she lied," said University of Alaska professor Rick Steiner, who wrangled with the Palin administration for months to obtain the documents. "She came out and said, 'our scientists agree the polar bears are fine and should not be listed'" when that wasn't the case, said Steiner, a conservation specialist who studies climate change. The McCain-Palin campaign did not make the governor available for comment.
-- ABC NEWS, August 31, 2008

Now mind you, I am an Episcopalian, non-creationist, who believes in evolution and abhors any notion of theocracy, was trained in the sciences and believes public education should be free from all religious factors, influences and interferences. I really don't care WHAT you believe in terms of faith--it's alright with me. You can worship purple pepper shakers if you like, or be an atheist. But shove your rhetoric and belief on me or the American people--or students--yes, I will take you to task. Government and religion must always have a bright, bright line between them. And no, the founding fathers did not support Christianity in the Constitution. In fact, they went WAY out of their way to prevent just that.

So, Sarah Palin, keep your religious beliefs out of the secular society you represent and specifically out of politics. And if you find you are unable to do this and unwilling to leave politics, at least be consistent under your own creationist, literalist faith. If you are proud of it, don't lie about it, don't hide it and live consistently with it. You are not doing any of these things right now.

For some great and interesting reading on polar bears, read this article.

Phot0 Credit: ABC News

This or This? Palin's Compassion Runs To Killing

OR

GOP Vice Presidential candidate Palin objects to the listing of polar bears as endangered. The bear's habitat is literally melting away due to global warming and the species is a candidate for listing under the endangered species list.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OR


GOP Vice Presidential candidate Palin supports gunning down of wolves from airplanes (they run them nearly to death then shoot them) to attract hunters and preserve caribou FOR more hunters. Palin announced she would pay a $150 bounty for each left foreleg brought in from a wolf kill. Palin is obviously another "compassionate" conservative.

There's a lot more wrong--very wrong--with the choice of Palin for VP. But to animal advocates--those that work to do no harm--this is completely over the top. And anyone that knows the animal advocacy folks knows you shouldn't fool around with them. Most Americans will find her views repugnant.